Small group of US experts insist global warming not man-made by Jean-Louis Santini
Sun Dec 16, 3:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A small group of US experts stubbornly insist that, contrary to what the vast majority of their colleagues believe, humans may not be responsible for the warming of the planet Earth.

These experts believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and they point to reams of data they say supports their assertions.

These conclusions are in sharp contradiction to those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reached its conclusions using largely similar data.

The UN body of about 3,000 experts, including several renown US scientists, jointly won the award with former US vice president Al Gore for their work to raise awareness about the disastrous consequences of global warming.

In mid-November the IPCC adopted a landmark report stating that the evidence of a human role in the warming of the planet was now "unequivocal."

Retreating glaciers and loss of snow in Alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost shows that climate change is already on the march, the report said.

Carbon pollution, emitted especially by the burning of oil, gas and coal, traps heat from the Sun, thus warming the Earth's surface and inflicting changes to weather systems.

A group of US scientists however disagree, and have written an article on their views that is published in The International Journal of Climatology, a publication of Britain's Royal Meteorological Society.

"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn't show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming," wrote lead author David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York state.

"The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," Douglas wrote.

According to co-author John Christi from the University of Alabama, satellite data "and independent balloon data agree that the atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface," while greenhouse models "demand that atmospheric trend values be two to three times greater."

Data from satellite observations "suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects" of human carbon dioxide emissions.

The journal authors "have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases."

For Fred Singer, a climatologist at the University of Virginia and another co-author, the current warming "trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep sea sediments and stalagmites . . . and published in hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals."

How these cyclical climate take place is still unknown, but they "are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on cloudiness, and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface and thus the climate."

Singer said at a recent National Press Club meeting in Washington that there is still no definite proof that humans can produce climate change.

The available data is ambiguous, Singer said: global temperatures, for example, rose between 1900 and 1940, well before humans began to burn the enormous quantities of hydrocarbons they do today. Then they dropped between 1940 and 1975, when the use of oil and coal increased, he said.

Singer believes that other factors -- like variations of solar winds and terrestrial magnetic field that impact cloud formations and the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, and thus determining the temperature -- are much more influential than human-generated greenhouse gas emissions.

Peter

12-16-2007, 07:48 PM

Notice the web address "climate warming denial". Denying manmade climtate change is now similar to holocaust denial. What will haopen next to these scientist? Will they be prosecuted for denying manmade climate change? I know some professors got threatend to be fired because of climate change denial.

In this article they talk about the warming trend in the climate which occured between 1900-1940. At the same time the sea ice at the artic retreated north and the co2 concentrations were about the same as now. Than between 1940 and 1970 the temperature went down and the border of the sea ice moved south. since 1980 it is warming up again and the border of the sea ice is moving north. Now its at the same latitude as in 1940 again. In the 1970 the experts were warning of global cooling and wrote books about that. Now the same guys write about global warming and write books about that. Seems their opinion is as changable as the climate itself.

One of the reasons the illuminsts are promoting climate change scare is to raise taxes. Farths of animals are taxed now in australia. No kiding. In the future they might even start taxing the CO2 we emmit. Its all part of being a slave and paying your dues to your master. :-? :-? :-?

this

05-15-2008, 11:54 PM

Yes, this is a really big issue, certainly here in Canada. It's mentioned one way or another every day on the radio or TV, and always mentioned as unquestioned fact (Human emissions causing climate change).

World climate is not a simple topic to analyze but that hasn't stopped legions of scientists jumping in feet first trying to correlate one variable or another with 'AGW'. There's on the order of 5,000 variables controlling world climate so you have to take a big picture to get an idea of what's really going on. But science today is rarely about that, they look at one specific thing and that's what the funding is based on.

Having studied what the scientists have come up with I can give my interpretation of what's going on, as a broad overview (in case anyone cares or is listening??)

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, CO2 has an effect, but increasing concentrations of CO2 make almost difference to the effect. As silly as it may sound with all the brainwashing we've heard, you can pretty much ignore the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas when trying to figure out climate. It's a static constant in it's effect, even though it has been steadily rising this century.

And the oceans suck up or give off CO2 at will depending on their temperature, dwarfing our effect on CO2 levels. Actually everything on Earth dwarfs our effect on CO2 levels, including bacteria, animals, plants, even the odd volcano. We contribute 3% of the stuff to the environment, which trees and vegetation suck up to grow bigger and faster than at lower CO2 levels earlier this century.

But there's a whole, literally billions of dollars global warming science industry coming up with reasons and half truths going against every sensical observation that can be made saying otherwise (that we humans are just along for the ride, planet Earth has it's own idea of what the climate will be next.) And eventually it will return us to an Ice Age. The long term geological studies of temperature show that we are in periodic and normal warm period, and if anything our CO2 levels are quite low at 385 ppm. Plants won't grow below 200 ppm, and in greenhouses CO2 concentrations are set to 1000 or 1500 ppm for optimal growth.

Furthermore, the Global Warmers are currently quite testy because CO2 levels have been gradually rising, but there has been no observed warming since 1998. Their models and 'warm - mongering' are falling flat.

Notice the web address "climate warming denial". Denying manmade climtate change is now similar to holocaust denial. What will haopen next to these scientist? Will they be prosecuted for denying manmade climate change? I know some professors got threatend to be fired because of climate change denial.

When scientists are being censored for speaking out, you know there's something fishy going on.....